Deren's pipe Dream: "objectively verifiable evidence proving Jesus is God" !

[Pythagoras]

The trinitarian Deren says there is "objectively verifiable evidence to prove that Jesus is God."

So let's have that objectively verifiable evidence proving Jesus God. This is going to be interesting!

[Deren]

The trinitarian Deren says there is "objectively verifiable evidence to prove that Jesus is God."

So let's have that objectively verifiable evidence proving Jesus God. This is going to be interesting!

Alright, lets start with the objectively verifiable and historically accurate document called the Bible. Not only does it have by far greater attestation for its existence and message than any other document of similar antiquity, those who have challenged both its external and internal evidences have consistently fallen shipwreck on the rocks of their subjective theories and speculations. Therefore, before we begin a perusal of the scriptural witness of Jesus' deity, the question that you need to answer, Pyth, is whether or not you agree that the Bible is an objective and historical source. Is it, or, is it not? If not, then you must specifically state your reasons for rejecting it as such, and the error must be corrected. Otherwise, as I've stated elsewhere, it is futile to try and explain the beauty of a sun-shiny day in Spring to a blind man.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Deren,


Alright, lets start with the objectively verifiable and historically accurate document called the Bible.



Many scholars refute the notion that the Bible is "objectively varifiable and historically accurate" (though I'm not one of them). So right off the back you're making a subjective claim.



Therefore, before we begin a perusal of the scriptural witness of Jesus' deity, the question that you need to answer, Pyth, is whether or not you agree that the Bible is an objective and historical source.



I agree the bible is historical and objective but this is a subjective claim on my part , others disagree with me.

Daren, your problem surpasses whether the bible is historically objective or not because to begin with there is nothing at all in all of the OT and NT to support your claim that Jesus is God ( your subjective misinterpretations of scriptural verses notwithstanding ofcourse).

Don't you understand, your pipe dream that has no basis in reality?

[Krusader]

Hi Deren,




Many scholars refute the notion that the Bible is "objectively varifiable and historically accurate" (though I'm not one of them). So right off the back you're making a subjective claim.





I agree the bible is historical and objective but this is a subjective claim on my part , others disagree with me.

Daren, your problem surpasses whether the bible is historically objective or not because to begin with there is nothing at all in all of the OT and NT to support your claim that Jesus is God ( your subjective misinterpretations of scriptural verses notwithstanding ofcourse).

Don't you understand, your pipe dream that has no basis in reality?

Pyth, can you make an historically objective claim for Julius Ceasar. If so, there is more evidence for the existence of Christ. Once you have located the Lord Jesus' tomb and found within it a 2,000 year old corpse, maybe Christians would pause for thought and say they'd been deceived all along. If not, then Christ has verified His own Deity.

[Deren]

Hi Deren,

Many scholars refute the notion that the Bible is "objectively varifiable and historically accurate" (though I'm not one of them). So right off the back you're making a subjective claim.

Stop right there. Name one scholar who has refuted the objectivity of the Bible, the method he used to evaluate the evidence, and whether or not his method and conclusions have been sustained by the vast majority of scholars such as F. F. Bruce, John Warwick Montgomery, Craig Blomberg, Sir Frederick Kenyon, et al, who have shown that the biblical documents are objectively reliable for discussions concerning what happened in the early days of the church, as well as validating the claims of Jesus and others concerning his deity.

I agree the bible is historical and objective but this is a subjective claim on my part, others disagree with me.

What? If you believe that the Bible is historical and objective, then how can it be a subjective claim unless you were ignoring the historical/objective claims that it was making? In other words, your comment does not make any sense.

Daren, your problem surpasses whether the bible is historically objective or not because to begin with there is nothing at all in all of the OT and NT to support your claim that Jesus is God ( your subjective misinterpretations of scriptural verses notwithstanding ofcourse).

Don't jump to too quick of conclusions. Because if it can be proved that the Bible is objectively accurate and reliable, then there is all kinds of objectively accurate and reliable evidence which points to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed God.

Don't you understand, your pipe dream that has no basis in reality?

Don't you realize that reality is not based in subjective accusations that have no objective merit? Now, who are these supposed "scholars" you've been talking about, what is their method of judging the evidence, and just how far have they fallen by the wayside in their estimations?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Deren,


Stop right there. Name one scholar who has refuted the objectivity of the Bible,



There are many scholars who think the bible is corrupted and unreliable. Some examples at the top of my head are Barh Ehram, George Arthur Buttrick, James Bentley, Howard Clarke, Bruce Metzger, Wescott, Hort, John McKenzie, James Bentley et al. This is the tip of the ice berg.



F. F. Bruce, John Warwick Montgomery, Craig Blomberg, Sir Frederick Kenyon, et al, who have shown that the biblical documents are objectively reliable for discussions concerning what happened


This is what James Bentley in his work "Secrets of Mt. Sainai" says, p.117, "the New Testament had in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written"

This is what the "Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible", Vol. 4, p.711, Abingdon Press, says:.

"1 John 5:7 in the KJV reads: 'There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one' but this is an interpolation of which there is no trace before the late fourth century."

In his "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", Bart Ehrman, pp. 27-28 writes,

"Nonetheless, there are some kinds of textual changes for which it is difficult to account apart from the deliberate activity of a transcriber. When a scribe appended an additional twelve verses to the end of the Gospel of Mark, this can scarcely be attributed to mere oversight"

Hort and Wescott write, "...all scholars except Catholics and Fundamentalists now agree that they (Timothy and Titus letters) are second century compositions dealing with a second century situation...these forgers probably drew on what they knew of Paul's life to lend their work an air of verisimilitude."

And I can go on and on.


the method he used to evaluate the evidence, and whether or not his method and conclusions have been sustained by the vast majority of scholars such as in the early days of the church,as well as validating the claims of Jesus and others concerning his deity.


Another loony claim.

The Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 899 says,

"The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."

Look it Deren, the simple truth of the matter is that it is impossible to objectively verify if Jesus(or for that matter any man) was/is God. Even the Catholic Church doesn't pretend to do this, it terms the trinity a "Mystery" which must be accepted on the basis of faith and not on objective evidence.

Yours is a Pipe Dream.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Crusader,


Pyth, can you make an historically objective claim for Julius Ceasar. If so, there is more evidence for the existence of Christ.



Have it your way. Let's say Christ existed. How does this prove him God? Genghis Khan existed , was he God?


Once you have located the Lord Jesus' tomb and found within it a 2,000 year old corpse, maybe Christians would pause for thought and say they'd been deceived all along. If not, then Christ has verified His own Deity

Even if we admit Jesus was raised by God on the third day, all this proves is the resurrection of Christ , not his Deity.

Why can't trinitarians seem to follow a logical trian of thought?

[Deren]

Hi Deren,

There are many scholars who think the bible is corrupted and unreliable. Some examples at the top of my head are Barh Ehram, George Arthur Buttrick, James Bentley, Howard Clarke, Bruce Metzger, Wescott, Hort, John McKenzie, James Bentley et al. This is the tip of the ice berg.

I could go on and on.

Excuse me, but given the selected quotes that you did, strikingly, none of them said anything in reference to the question being asked of you. In fact, you failed to answer all of the questions, period. Furthermore, you managed to misrepresent at least one scholar, Bruce Metzger, for I know that he doesn't consider the Bible to be "corrupted and unreliable," and he's even authored a book speaking of the Bible's transmission, corruption, and restoration. Did you get that last part? Also, I noticed in your selective reading of Bart Ehrman the failure to recognize just what his book, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture," was really all about. Was Ehrman trying to stress that "corruptions" took place, and that the Bible is no longer an objectively credible document to be referred to for matters of faith and practice, or, was Ehrman simply trying to point out that "corruptions" took place in order to clarify Christian doctrine in the face of its early enemies? If you don't know, let me help you find the answer. He says on pages 279-80,

What, though, were scribes actually doing when they effected these modifications? This is the question I raised at the outset of the study, and it has lost none of its force in the intervening pages. The proposal I advanced there may now be restated with the benefit of the data accumulated in the interim. In no instance of scribal corruption that we have examined, even the most blatant of them, have we uncovered evidence to suggest that proto-orthodox scribes acted out of sheer malice or utter disregard for the constraints of the text—that is, that they strove to make the text say precisely what they knew it did not. Quite to the contrary, it appears that these scribes knew exactly what the text said, or at least they thought they knew (which for our purposes comes to the same thing), and that the changes they made functioned to make these meanings all the more certain.

In other words, Ehrman's conclusions are not to be construed, or taken out of context, like you and the Mormons love doing, to support whatever agenda you have in mind. What Ehrman's conclusions lead to is a Bible that is credible for not only understanding the Christian faith, but for objectively inquiring into history and doctrine as well.

Now, unless you're going to be a bit more willing and straightforward in dealing with the questions, then we're never going to be able to correct your thinking in terms of what the Bible has to say about Jesus' deity. Also, I would suggest that the next time you quote anyone, that you include the full context, for in the past I am quite aware of just how much Jehovah's Witnesses love misquoting authors to try and dupe people into accepting their position. And if you don't want me to make a total donkey out of you, then I suggest you check and re-check your quotes before you give them.

Nevertheless, you may return to the questions now, and please answer them this time.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Deren,



Furthermore, you managed to misrepresent at least one scholar, Bruce Metzger, for I know that he doesn't consider the Bible to be "corrupted and unreliable," and he's even authored a book speaking of the Bible's transmission, corruption, and restoration. Did you get that last part?



You forget the middle part, "corruption"? If a scholar thinks a document has undergone corruption, how can he still think it objective?.. Your original claim was that there are no scholars in the whole world who think the bible is not objective , or is unhistorical.This is another one of your fantastic pipe dreams. Ofcourse there are many, many scholars out there who think the bible is unhistorical and corrupted and not objective, this is a non-issue. And I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

Let's get to the meat and potatoes.

Let's concede the Bible is historically accurate, objective and uncorrupted. How does the historical accuracy and objectivity of the bible "objectively prove" Jesus is God, since there is nothing in either the NT or the OT to suggest such an absurd notion.

Deren, please stick to the relevant points under discussion and not loose focus, or try to obfuscate.
I want you to address this point next post, and not go off on a tangent.

best,

[Timothy Leary]

I wonder if Mr. π can prove that God exists using "objectively verifiable evidence".

[Cynic Sage]

Let's get to the meat and potatoes.

Let's concede the Bible is historically accurate, objective and uncorrupted. How does the historical accuracy and objectivity of the bible "objectively prove" Jesus is God, since there is nothing in either the NT or the OT to suggest such an absurd notion.

Deren, please stick to the relevant points under discussion and not loose focus, or try to obfuscate.
I want you to address this point next post, and not go off on a tangent.


What then about Christ's divine claims? (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/jesusclaimshub.html)

[Deren]

Hi Deren, You forget the middle part, "corruption"? If a scholar thinks a document has undergone corruption, how can he still think it objective?

I didn't forget anything. I simply placed the stress where it belongs. Metzger mentions corruption, because there was. But, he concludes with restoration because the corruptions have been corrected. And anyone familiar with Metzger's NT commentary, as well as the Greek apparatus' of either the NA27 or BHS3/4, will recognize that the whole idea behind "corruptions" is overstated, and has absolutely no bearing upon orthodox Christian doctrine.

Your original claim was that there are no scholars in the whole world who think the bible is not objective , or is unhistorical.

That was not my claim, so DO NOT, be putting words in my mouth. I simply asked for those who believed in such, and what their method was in arriving at their claims. Then, I wanted to know just how well-received their method is still being received, if it ever was, among the rest of the scholarly community. So far, you haven't provided answers to all the questions, and frankly, I don't think you ever will, because you can't. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting.

This is another one of your fantastic pipe dreams. Ofcourse there are many, many scholars out there who think the bible is unhistorical and corrupted and not objective, this is a non-issue. And I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

It is only a waste of time for those whose argument is shot from the git-go. And the argument that the biblical documents are not valid for objective, historical study of the NT world, particularly in validating the deity of Jesus, is an argument for losers.

Let's get to the meat and potatoes.

We are at the meat and potatoes, yet because of the weakness of your position, you want to avoid it out of expediency. Well, I'm not interested in skipping the details just so you can find a favorite hobby-horse that you can ride to your heart's desire. Now, if you don't want to answer the questions, then I suggest that you simply conceded defeat, and find a more gullible target to level your intellectual dishonesty. Otherwise, answer the questions.

Deren, please stick to the relevant points under discussion and not loose focus, or try to obfuscate.

Who's the one avoiding the questions?

Let's concede the Bible is historically accurate and uncorrupted. How does this "objectively prove" Jesus to be God, since there is nothing in either the NT or the OT to suggest such an absurd notion.

No, no, no, lets don't be so hasty here. You either concede because you admit that your argument was faulty, and you understand why, or else you don't, thereby opening up the potential for you to use the same kind of uninformed, if not deceitful, arguments later on. So, which is it?

I want you to address this point next post, and not go off on a tangent.

No one has presented to you a tangential question that is irrelevent to the subject. What you have done, though, is misquoted scholars, ignored relevent questions pertinent to the subject, and engaged in ad hominems that are indicative of the weakness of your position. So, don't be telling me what to do, and not to do, because I'm not interested in addressing something as important as the deity of Christ in such a sloppy, dishonest manner. If you can't handle an intelligent, deliberate discussion intended to demonstrate the truth, then once again, you might want to find something else to do. Otherwise, once again, you've got some questions to answer. I'm waiting.

[Darth Executor]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Sweet dancing Attila the Hun on a Calvinist lamp post this has to be the most hilarious thing I've ever seen! Pythagoras attacking scripture! I guess heresy is bound to drive the devil practicing it back to hell eventually.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Johnyy EC,

What then about Christ's divine claims? (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/jesusclaimshub.html)

Christ never made a single divine claim, jp Holding's subjective reinterpretation of Jesus's words to fit trinitarian doctrine not withstanding.

This is not rocket science folks. There is absolutely no objectively verifiable method to prove Jesus God even if we accept the bible to be true and objective.

[Pythagoras]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Sweet dancing Attila the Hun on a Calvinist lamp post this has to be the most hilarious thing I've ever seen! Pythagoras attacking scripture! I guess heresy is bound to drive the devil practicing it back to hell eventually.

What are you mumbling about Darth?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Deren,

Your last post did absolutely nothing to objectively prove Jesus God , something you claimed to be able to do .

I'm willing to make things easy for you by conceding the bible is objective, historical and reliable.

So let's have it.

[Pythagoras]

P.S. Dear Deren,



What? If you believe that the Bible is historical and objective, then how can it be a subjective claim unless you were ignoring the historical/objective claims that it was making?

For me to conclude the bible is historical/objective is a subjective claim because another scholar might reject the premises I utilize for supposing the bible to be objective/historical.



That was not my claim, so DO NOT, be putting words in my mouth. I simply asked for those who believed in such, and what their method was in arriving at their claims. Then, I wanted to know just how well-received their method is still being received, if it ever was, among the rest of the scholarly community. So far, you haven't provided answers to all the questions, and frankly, I don't think you ever will, because you can't. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting.


I've already furnished the names of scholars who do not think the bible is objective. Here's more fodder; a link which shows the many inconsistencies inherent in the geneological, prophetical and chronological record of the Gospel accounts.

http://home.freeuk.net/jesusmyth/page9.htm (http://home.freeuk.net/jesusmyth/page9.htm)




And the argument that the biblical documents are not valid for objective, historical study of the NT world, particularly in validating the deity of Jesus, is an argument for losers.



Daren, how can you say there is objective evidence in the bible to prove Jesus God when such an idea is no where to be found in the Gospel accounts? Quoting passages of scripture , like John 1:1 to show the Deity of Christ is not objective evidence but subjective interpretation of scripture.



Now, if you don't want to answer the questions, then I suggest that you simply conceded defeat, and find a more gullible target to level your intellectual dishonesty. Otherwise, answer the questions.



Why are you freaking out? I agree the bible is consistent, objective and historical. But I can't speak for all those scholars out there who think the bible is unhistorical and not objective.



No, no, no, lets don't be so hasty here. You either concede because you admit that your argument was faulty, and you understand why, or else you don't, thereby opening up the potential for you to use the same kind of uninformed, if not deceitful, arguments later on. So, which is it?


I've stated from the get-go tha I believe the bible is objective. But I cannot possibly speak for the many, many scholars out there who think the bible is not objective. From my point of view, these scholars are wrong in supposing the bible to be not objective .(this is an observation on my part Daren, which to those on the other side of the fence is a subjective observation) .

Now please furnish the objective evidence which proves Jesus is God. I'm dying to know because this would be a fantastic breakthrough far greater than Einstein's theory of relativity . If you can furnish this objective proof showing Jesus to be God, then all of the scientists, archeologists , historians rational people of the world will have no choice but to accept Jesus as Yahweh .

Come on now , where's the beef?

[Scruffy]

If the Bible is historically and objectively reliable, then the conclusion that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh is unescapable.

The OT points to Christ, and Jesus fulfills the requirements of the Christ in the NT in a way that is seamless, consistant, and logical.

A little known method of verifing this consistancy among the books of the Bible is the Bible Wheel (http://www.biblewheel.com/ ) .

The Bible Wheel is a simple and direct geometric representation of the Holy Bible. It reveals the supernatural structure of the Christian Canon by displaying the intrinsic geometric integration of the sixty-six books amongst themselves and with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

Take a few minutes and look it over.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Scruffy,



If the Bible is historically and objectively reliable, then the conclusion that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh is unescapable.



Unfortunately your conclusion is simply not true.

For instance,the trinitarian reading John 1:1 comes to the conclusion that Jesus is God. The Arian reading the same verse comes to the opposite conclusion. Why? Because both interprete the verse differently, i.e. subjectively.

There is absolutely no way to objectively show Jesus God even if the Bible be taken to be historical and objective.


The OT points to Christ, and Jesus fulfills the requirements of the Christ in the NT in a way that is seamless, consistant, and logical.



This is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't prove Jesus God.

etc.,

[spl_cadet]

“The Word was made flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father.” [John 1:14] Now, if Christ were truly the adoptive Son of God, as Arianism proposes, then He could not be the only Son of God, as Christians are adoptive sons and daughters of God, Romans 8:15-17. However, if He is the natural Son of God, then it would be proper for the Scriptures to refer to Him as the only Son of God.

This is a critical difference. What is the difference between an adopted son and a natural son? The adopted son is the son of the father because the father has decreed: “You are my son.” The natural son, however, is the son of the father by nature, proceeding forth from the father. There is no difference in nature or species between the natural son and natural father, though there can (but not necessarily) be between the adopted son and adoptive father. With Christ then, as the natural Son of the Father, He must of necessity be of the same nature, the same essence, as the Father.

St. Paul refers to this when he writes, “[Christ] is the radiant light of God’s glory and the perfect copy of his nature, sustaining the universe by his powerful command.” [Hebrews 1:3] As the perfect copy of His nature Christ is the natural son of the Father and of the same essence as Him.

“That life [the Word] was made visible: we saw it and we are giving our testimony, telling you of the eternal life which was with the Father and has been made visible to us.”[1 John 1:2] Now an eternal life is one that has neither beginning nor end. While the angels are immortal, it being impossible for them to die, they are not eternal, for they are created beings. Nor is it possible for a being to be created before time and so be eternal, for such a being still has a beginning. Furthermore, to say that a being can be created before time is nonsensical, for time is the measure of change. Time began with the first act of creation, when the first change, the existence of something rather than nothing, occurred.

The Arian insistence that Jesus Christ is similar in nature to the Father rather than of the same essence runs afoul of the Father’s declaration to the prophet Isaiah: “To whom can you compare me, equate me, to whom claim I am similar, or comparable?” [Isaiah 46:5] A rhetorical question by God the Father, but one that the Arians would be forced answer in the positive, rather than the negative, for they hold that Christ is indeed similar and comparable to the Father.

Finally, through Isaiah, it is proclaimed: “There is no other god besides me, a God of integrity and a saviour; there is none apart from me.” [Isaiah 45:21] Yet Arianism, in proclaiming a deified Christ, proclaims that there is indeed a god besides the Father, and that God is a savior as well.

http://catholic-cadet.com/heresy/arianism.html


The Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 899 says,

"The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."


This doesn't actually support your claim. This is actually more in line with a Catholic proof that sola scriptura is wrong (which is what I suspect we'd find if the context was provided). The S.J. stands for Society of Jesus, the Jesuits.

Then again, the Jesuits do tend to be rank heretics nowadays.

[alam]

Hi spl_cadet :

“The Word was made flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father.” [John 1:14] Now, if Christ were truly the adoptive Son of God, as Arianism proposes, then He could not be the only Son of God, as Christians are adoptive sons and daughters of God, Romans 8:15-17. However, if He is the natural Son of God, then it would be proper for the Scriptures to refer to Him as the only Son of God.

The word in there is monogenēs. Translating it as "only" ignores the -genēs suffix. The word is traditionally translated as "only begotten." Jerome translates it as unigenitus. I know there is controversy on whether the suffix derives from gennaō or gignomai. However, the verbs are from the same basic root with overlapping meanings, and in practice, the -genēs suffix is often used to signify generation. For example, neogenēs means "new born," and Diogenēs means "born of Zeus" (Liddell and Scott). The clear use of monogenēs in a filial sense, even standing alone (John 1:14; Hebrews 11:17), strongly supports the traditional understanding of the suffix to mean "begotten" in the New Testament.

As implied above, the word monos means "only." Now it is not literally true that Christ is the only begotten son, since the elect are also begotten of God (John 1:13; 1 John 5:1,18). But there are other ways of understanding the term. It is possible to take monos in the sense of "unique" so that the term means "uniquely-begotten." It is likewise possible to understand the monos as the subject of the generation and interpret monogenēs as "begotten of the Only," begotten of the Monad (the Father), whereas all subsequent beings derive from the Dyad of Father and Son.

Since the elect are also described as generated of God in the scriptures, and the precise meaning of monogenēs itself is in dispute, silence is the best response to arguments based on supposed oppositions between divine adoption and generation.



St. Paul refers to this when he writes, “[Christ] is the radiant light of God’s glory and the perfect copy of his nature, sustaining the universe by his powerful command.” As the perfect copy of His nature Christ is the natural son of the Father and of the same essence as Him.

The original word behind "perfect copy" is xaraktēr primarily meaning "a mark engraved or impressed, the impress or stamp on coins and seals" (Liddell and Scott). Christ no more need be homoousios with the Father on this basis than the wax that is stamped with a seal must be homoousios with the seal.




“That life [the Word] was made visible: we saw it and we are giving our testimony, telling you of the eternal life which was with the Father and has been made visible to us.”[1 John 1:2] Now an eternal life is one that has neither beginning nor end. While the angels are immortal, it being impossible for them to die, they are not eternal, for they are created beings.

The term aiōnios does not mean sempiternity. Its first definition in Liddell and Scott is "lasting for an age." It certainly need not imply eternity past. The elect who have eternal life have not lived from eternity past.


Nor is it possible for a being to be created before time and so be eternal, for such a being still has a beginning. Furthermore, to say that a being can be created before time is nonsensical, for time is the measure of change. Time began with the first act of creation, when the first change, the existence of something rather than nothing, occurred.

The creation of the Logos is causally prior to time, not temporally prior to time which is an oxymoron, nor eternally prior to time because he was, in fact, created (Prov. 8:22; Sirach 1:4,9; 24:9).



The Arian insistence that Jesus Christ is similar in nature to the Father rather than of the same essence runs afoul of the Father’s declaration to the prophet Isaiah: “To whom can you compare me, equate me, to whom claim I am similar, or comparable?” [Isaiah 46:5] A rhetorical question by God the Father, but one that the Arians would be forced answer in the positive, rather than the negative, for they hold that Christ is indeed similar and comparable to the Father.

He is similar and comparable to God in some respects simply because he is the supreme created image of God. No image is entirely unlike what it represents, or how could it even represent it in the first place? Even man is the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7).

And the house of David [shall be] as God ([HEBREW]כאלהים), as the angel of the LORD before them.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him (homoioi autō); for we shall see him as he is.

If the elect shall be like God in some sense, without becoming homoousios with God, it is unclear why Christ could not also be like God, without being homoousios with God.


Finally, through Isaiah, it is proclaimed: “There is no other god besides me, a God of integrity and a saviour; there is none apart from me.” [Isaiah 45:21] Yet Arianism, in proclaiming a deified Christ, proclaims that there is indeed a god besides the Father, and that God is a savior as well.

No one had to wait for Arianism to teach that, when the Bible does (Ex. 21:6,22; Psa. 82:6; Obad. 21). Biblical monotheism does not mean that there is objectively only one God in existence, but that there is one God unique and alone and no god (nor savior, for that matter) is apart/independent from Him (מבלעדו) as an autonomous principle.


God bless

[Pythagoras]

Hi Alam,

Could you turn to this page?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1180822#post1180822




Eliyosef , totally, absolutely in denial. I've never seen anything quite like it. -- regarding the Akedah and Daniel's prophecy of the "cutting off" of Messiah.

[Provoker]

Gentlement:
If we apply a little logic and context, rather than appealing to selected single verses, all may become clear.
God made an everlasting covenant with national Israel, whereby, if Israel keeps God's laws, God would make Israel into a great nation which will be a blessing to all the nations of the world.
If however, Israel does not keep God's laws, God will not aid Israel nationally, and that is the reason why, when Israel split into two enemy nations, those nations went down to destruction, because God was obliged to turn His face away from them, until such time as they repent, by returning to being the one covenant nation of Israel again.
According to the terms of the everlasting(old) covenant, God cannot help Israel nationally, and therefore, He cannot help Israel to be resurrected, so that it can repent. Indeed, Deut. 28 makes it quite clear that God will hinder, rather than help, the unrepentant children of Israel.
The prophesy that an annointed descendant of David would resurrect the kingdom, specificly refers to the kingdom of his father David, not the kingdom of his father God, making it quite clear that the coming kingdom will be the literal, earthly, Davidic kingdom.
Since the bible is clear on the fact that God cannot help Israel nationally, until Israel repents, then the messiah cannot be God, and cannot even be helped by God. The messiah, and spiritual Israel, are on their own till the kingdom of covenant Israel is finally resurrected.
At that point, God will receive repentant Israel back into His favour, and God's covenant plan to bless all the nations of the world, can continue where it left off at the end of Solomon's reign.
Then, so that Israel won't backslide again, God will, by His grace, make a new everlasting covenant, a simple promise that He will write His laws on the hearts and minds of resurrected Israel. Israel will then forever do by nature the things contained in God's laws, and the everlasting(old) covenant will be forever fulfilled. The old covenant is everlasting, and will always exist, but it will be made obsolete by the new covenant, which will make Israel completely law abiding(righteous).
Since the messiah will be king Solomon's immediate successor on the Davidic throne, he will receive, by royal succession tradition, Solomon's titles, which are; Son of David(he was literally David's son), and Son of God(God specificly made Solomon His only begotten son).
Do not believe my words however, but read the story which runs through the bible, and see for yourself what the context reveals.
I do not offer any single verses to verify my position, because the bible was not written in verses, it was written in context, and one cannot understand the story in the bible, by reading selected, individual, verses, a method which has spawned 30,000+ doctrinally conflicting denominations and sects of Christianity.
What do you think?

[sonofyah]

Alright, lets start with the objectively verifiable and historically accurate document called the Bible. Not only does it have by far greater attestation for its existence and message than any other document of similar antiquity, those who have challenged both its external and internal evidences have consistently fallen shipwreck on the rocks of their subjective theories and speculations. Therefore, before we begin a perusal of the scriptural witness of Jesus' deity, the question that you need to answer, Pyth, is whether or not you agree that the Bible is an objective and historical source. Is it, or, is it not? If not, then you must specifically state your reasons for rejecting it as such, and the error must be corrected. Otherwise, as I've stated elsewhere, it is futile to try and explain the beauty of a sun-shiny day in Spring to a blind man.

Read below


Hello,

I know I am late with this one but I see error. First I would like to say "God" is a terrible substitution for "Elohim". Now to everyone who thinks the Trinity is truth is a liar. It doesnt appear in the scriptures. The truth is Elohim is plural and it means "Mighty Ones". That is the common name given to YHWH, The Word and The Ruach Hakodesh. These three are ONE, meaning one like a marriage. All Throughout scripture You see Yahshua speaking to his Father in Heaven so that totally rebukes the question "is jesus god". The answer is NO. Yahshua is Emmanuel which means "Elohim is with us".

Scriptures:

Mat 1:23
Mat 27:46
Rev 5

Next, I want to say Yes Yahshua died, but you have to realize he was the ultimate sacrifice for a people that YHWH loved so much. It was divine order, he was sent here to die for us.

Bereshith 1:1- In the begining Elohim created the heavens and the Earth.

This is the truth. You know the Father, the word and the Ruach Hakodesh was there in the begining, but this cannot be true if place "GOD" in the place of Elohim. "God" denotes "one", its singular. Also we know the angels knew him as "El". Why, All of the angels were called "Sons of Elohim". I mean if you look at it, all of there names end in "el". See

Michael
Gabriel
Raziel.....

Also see Shemoth (Exodus) 6:3 And I appeared to Abraham, to Yitshaq and to Yaaqob as El Shaddai. And by my Name YHWH was I not known to them?

So to answer your question. No the Heavenly Father YHWH didnot die, but His Only begotten Son did. YHWH raised him from the dead on the third day.

Thats what I wrote in the other thread "is jesus god". Yes the Word is truth but the english language will hack up any doctrine or truth that is transliterated into it.

[mastralvarado]

Good Day,

I just wanted to share my thoughts with you on this subject matter.

Prophecy (used by christian theologians claiming Jesus is son of G-d):
This is from Psalm 2:7:

I will tell of the decree. Y-hweh said to me, "You are my son. Today I have
become your father. (WEB)2

Supposed "Fullfilment" (among others in new testament)2

Matthew 3:17
Behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is my beloved son, with
whom I am well pleased." (WEB)

Contradiction:

This is from John 8:58 New Testament:

Jesus said to them, "Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM. " (WEB)

Reason:

Since Jesus "exists" before Abraham then there is nothing in the Torah that
places Jesus' coming into being in the time frame when Psalm 2:7 is
revealed. I don't know what the prophecy means but I'm sure it is used as
a metaphor.

Hi Scruffy,





Unfortunately your conclusion is simply not true.

For instance,the trinitarian reading John 1:1 comes to the conclusion that Jesus is God. The Arian reading the same verse comes to the opposite conclusion. Why? Because both interprete the verse differently, i.e. subjectively.

There is absolutely no way to objectively show Jesus God even if the Bible be taken to be historical and objective.




This is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't prove Jesus God.

etc.,

Sources:

1 Evidences for a Verdict,
Josh McDowell, Editorial Vida.
2 Christian Bible, www.bible.cc (WEB).

[sonofyah]

Good Day,

I just wanted to share my thoughts with you on this subject matter.

Prophecy (used by christian theologians claiming Jesus is son of G-d):
This is from Psalm 2:7:

I will tell of the decree. Y-hweh said to me, "You are my son. Today I have
become your father. (WEB)2

Supposed "Fullfilment" (among others in new testament)2

Matthew 3:17
Behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is my beloved son, with
whom I am well pleased." (WEB)

Contradiction:

This is from John 8:58 New Testament:

Jesus said to them, "Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM. " (WEB)

Reason:

Since Jesus "exists" before Abraham then there is nothing in the Torah that
places Jesus' coming into being in the time frame when Psalm 2:7 is
revealed. I don't know what the prophecy means but I'm sure it is used as
a metaphor.



Sources:

1 Evidences for a Verdict,
Josh McDowell, Editorial Vida.
2 Christian Bible, www.bible.cc (WEB).

Hello,

You make some good points but I must share with you some truth. The reson why I responded to this tread that God is a terrible substitution for Elohim. There is NO contradiction in the Scriptures. Its just the transliteration has turned to translation and then to substitution.
[/QUOTE]
Contradiction:

This is from John 8:58 New Testament:

Jesus said to them, "Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM. " [/QUOTE]

John 1:1 In the begining was the Word and the Word was with Elohim and the Word was Elohim.

Yahshua was first known as "the Word"

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh.(The living Word is Yahshua)

You have to understand that Yahshua was in the beginning with YHWH and all came to be through Him and without Him not even one came to be that came to be..John 1:2-3

[sonofyah]

Hello,

You make some good points but I must share with you some truth. The reson why I responded to this tread that God is a terrible substitution for Elohim. There is NO contradiction in the Scriptures. Its just the transliteration has turned to translation and then to substitution.

Contradiction:

This is from John 8:58 New Testament:

Jesus said to them, "Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM. " [/QUOTE]

John 1:1 In the begining was the Word and the Word was with Elohim and the Word was Elohim.

Yahshua was first known as "the Word"

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh.(The living Word is Yahshua)

You have to understand that Yahshua was in the beginning with YHWH and all came to be through Him and without Him not even one came to be that came to be..John 1:2-3[/QUOTE]

Torah

Bereshith 1:26 And Elohim said "Let us make man in OUR image"....

This would not make since to most if God supposed to be there. God is singular and it throughs you into believing that there is a condradiction. Elohim is plural which means mighty ones, The Father, The Son and the Ruach Hakodesh.....

[runecrow]

I know I am late with this one but I see error. First I would like to say "God" is a terrible substitution for "Elohim"... The truth is Elohim is plural and it means "Mighty Ones".

That is only partly true. Elohim is plural, of course. But does it necessarily indicate a numeric plurality? No. The problem with your reasoning is that you're taking a word out of its grammatic context.

Bereshith 1:1- In the begining Elohim created the heavens and the Earth.

That is a bad translation even though it is an appropriate transliteration of one word. You're making it look like we should understand Elohim as being numerically plural, but its deceiving. The word is intended to be understood as numerically singular. Look, it says "And Elohim said...". But that isn't what it says in Hebrew. It says, "And Elohim, He said..." It says, "vayo'mer 'elohim..." which is written, "vav [and] yud [third person masculine singular: he]..." It doesn't say, "third person masculine plural" it says singular.

So, why is a plural word refered to constantly by its modifiers as singular? Because it is numerically singular. If you look at the LXX, you won't see the word "theoi" (plural) in there, you will see the word "theos" (singular). Because the Jews who translated into Greek knew Hebrew and that elohim with singular modifiers was meant to be understood as singular in translation, and not plural.

There is a reason every translator who has ever existed translates "elohim" with singular modifiers as the singular "God" and not "Gods".